10-22-2017, 09:45 PM
(10-22-2017, 05:44 PM)Markster Wrote: So this weekend I biked the almost-complete Shirley Ave rebuild.
Uggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Shirley Ave in Kitchener.@CityKitchener's newest lost opportunity for segregated cycling infrastructure.
— Mark Jackson-Brown (@Markster3000) October 22, 2017
Bike lanes and sidewalks instead of a separated trail. pic.twitter.com/96W66Muw8h
Like, would it not have been cheaper to just axe the bike lanes, (3.5m less pavement on the road) axe one of the sidewalk (1.5m less concrete) and build a 2m MUT in place of the sidewalk?
The math tells me that's 1.5m less concrete, and 1.5m less asphalt. Cheaper! And better!
You should add back in the fact that road engineers like bike lanes because they use them instead of the extra .33 meters of space they require in the curb lane (which we may argue about the necessity of, but would still be required). And 2 meters is insufficient for a MUT, minimum will be 3 meters. And plus, you have bike lanes farther on on Shirley, which is a great trick that staff frequently use to justify more bad bike lanes.
Even still, you're basically saving the sidewalk (and trading 3 meters of pavement for cheaper pavement, since road pavement must be thicker), and then even if you did both sides in a MUT in order to provide an acceptable transition (ha ha) from the on road lanes, it would still only be comparable in cost, and vastly better in function.
*sigh*....
I would also like to see "segregated lanes" in the form of paving at the top of the curb. Given that many roads already pave 0.5-1 meter of space up there already, as has been done in this case already. You could have bike lanes for nearly free. Yet when "segregated lanes" are considered here, somehow a curb is required on both sides....why I have no idea.